April 29, 2008

  • ARTICLE: The (Nikon) differences between “Pro” and “semi-pro”

    It is often pondered, and rightly so, what the big differences are between cameras like the D300 and the D3. Nikon specifically classifies the D3 as a professional, flagship camera, while the D300 is relegated to “advanced amateur” and barely “semi-professional” duty. They are both 12 megapixels, they’re both weather-sealed magnesium bodies, they both have a 51 point AF system, they both hit a (very) high frame rate, etc. etc. All the “important” features are practically identical. Other than the sensors, what really accounts for the whopping $3,200 price difference?

    You see, this “other than the sensors” piece of the puzzle may soon be dealt with, if Nikon does what we are all expecting and makes a hybrid “D300 with a D3 sensor…”

    Now, if you could pay for example $3000 for a D300 body with a D3 sensor, why pay an extra $2000 for the D3?

    The answer is this- Indeed, to the class of photographers who consider, purchase, and maybe even shoot professionally with the D300 or an FX version of it, …there IS very little difference, or reason, in the D3. They (we) shoot at a level which the D300 type “semi-pro” camera body is more than enough, just like tons of high-end wedding pros shoot with the “lowly” Canon 5D, when the 1Ds mk3 is clearly so much “better”…

    BUT, the topmost professionals who DO shoot with the D3, (or the 1Ds mk3) whose job requires them to push a camera to it’s limits, these are the photographers who know and appreciate the differences.

    First of all, the D3 is made in a completely different factory than the D300, and possibly a different factory from where the FX D300 might be made. The D3 is made in Japan, while the likes of the D300 are made in Thailand. Since Nikon is a Japanese company, the D3 being made in Japan is equivalent to being “made in the USA” to an American. Even if the products themselves were identical, any discerning American professional would buy a “made in the USA” piece of equipment instead of a “made in China” piece of equipment, DUH… I’m not saying that Nikon’s Thailand factory / plant is ghetto, (and I’m not implying that ghetto = China, either) …but Nikon’s Thailand plant IS more automated and probably gets less QC than their Japan factories.

    Second, there are innumerable features that DO set the D3 apart from bodies like the D300…

    ~ The D3 has the professional circular eyepiece that accepts auxiliary attachments and has an eyepiece shutter. Not something 90% of photographers care at all about. But maybe to a top 10%, this spec is for some reason a necessity.

    ~ The D3 has dual CF card slots. Again, not something that amateurs an small-time pros may need. But say you were shooting the cover of Rolling Stone, or an epic geological / ecological / zoological event for National Geographic… Wouldn’t you want the security of time-of-capture data redundancy?

    ~ The D3 has higher-powered AF thanks not to hardware, (basically identical to the D300) …but to extra software / CPU power. It has a shutter that is rated for the longest life out of any shutter on the market, 300,000 clicks. It has voice comment recording, and a 3rd LCD screen below the main rear LCD, for additional information. (The viewfinder also reads out TONS of extra info, and the LCD on the top has more info than the D300 as well…) It has a live histogram readout in live view mode plus that nifty horizon leveling tool, a higher frame rate, a larger buffer, (and any FX D300 would not be able to hit 6 FPS, by the way, it would be more along the lines of 3-5) …and so on and so forth; a whole slew of little details that certain photographers are bound to “demand”…

    So yes, for most of us the D300, or an FX version of it, will be more than enough. Nikon is more than happy to sell high volumes of semi-pro bodies of course, because remember- they keep their profit margins up by having these bodies made in Thailand! And Nikon makes five D300′s for every one D3 they make, which means they’d have to make more than 5x the margin on the D3 for it to bring in more profit…

    Take care,
    =Matt=

Comments (7)

  • Pro = rich amateur.  Hahaha!

    D80 = climber that should know better.

  • @Skunkabilly - 

    At least 50-75% of people who purchase the D3, for example, don’t make a living with the camera.  That’s just the way it is! Rich people are entitled to their expensive toys.  If I’m ever rich, the first toy I’m buying is a 300 2.8 or 200 2.0…
    =Matt=

  • Yes, so I can buy their D3 when the D4 comes out!!!

  • @Skunkabilly - Ding ding ding!!!  Bingo, that’s where it’s at, buying the newly “obsolete”, barely used gear at a massive discount.

    Or, in my non-FX obsessed condition, I’ll pick up a 2nd D300 when the FX version of it comes out, probably.  Unless it’s ~$2000, in which case I’d consider…

  • matthew:

    Well I went to my local camera store and checked out the Nikon D300 and I think Im switching back AGAIN to Nikon from my Canon 5D cameras.

    The D300 is lighter, less expensive and feels better in my hands along with the great sharp optics of the Nikon lenses I like better than my pro L glass from Canon. So I’m getting 3-D300′s, 2 grips, 8 batteries,  2 -SB800 flashes, 70-200 2.8VR lens, 17-55mm lens, 10.5mm fisheye and the 85mm 1.8 lens. the toatl is around $8600 plus change but that wont be a problem since I own 11 canon L lenses, 3 580ex flashes and 3 camera bodies. I’ll be posting all my gear first on my blog for bloggers to see first and have first dibbs at, then onto the giant EBAY. last time I sold my gear on ebay, it went in one week…swish fast!  thanks for all your info here on your blog, it made me look at Nikon again and I looked at the D3, eeh! I had 2-d2X cameras, they were great but overkill for weddings. the D300 is wonderful.

    thanks

    Randy

  • I love these blogs they are so informing.

  • @Borelfoto - Randy, the D300 is fantastic for it’s speed and focusing, but I’m the first to admit-  you’ll be taking a STEP DOWN in low-light, high-ISO performance compared to the 5D.  Cropped sensors will just never compete with full-frame sensors.  At ISO 1600 and 3200, the 5D holds way more detail, especially in shadows, than the D300.  Like I said, I’ll be the first to admit this…  My style lends itself to shooting at ISO 100-400 and on a tripod though anyway, so I’m okay.

    Having said that, I’ve got nothing against switching!  I’d just advise against THREE D300 bodies.  You see, Nikon will finish off 2008, or begin 2009, with a D300 that has a D3 sensor, for about $3K.  THAT will be the ultimate wedding / portrait camera body, to be sure.  I’d rather have one of those and one D300, than three D300′s.  That is the camera I would wait for, since you have been spoiled by the amazing quality of full-frame.  (That and the shallow DOF)
    Lastly, keep in mind that Canon WILL be replacing the 5D here in a few months, I promise.  Between June and August, I GUARANTEE at least one 5D mk2, and it should ROCK.  They may even make two 5D replacements, one more affordable and one more professional…  The reason they “fumbled” this spring is because they wanted to re-do something, probably to compete with Nikon’s (Sony) high-res LCD screen…
    And besides, you can get D300 caliber shooting speed / focusing power from the 40D…  That would save you some money on lenses!
    =Matt=

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *